The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

God does exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jakabus has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 102295
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I would rather you start, I liked your opening round... In fact lets begin with that. You started off with your explanation of a 'reasonable definition' of a God according to you. To describe God as an omnipotent like being. (I have forgotten the three descriptions you gave prior to this debate [omnipotent, omnipresent & all loving being, I think are the descriptive words you used] its what made me want to debate you in the first place.) You then said it was unreasonable to refer to God as 'love' or the 'universe' but what makes you think that God is a thing we would refer to as a being? Do you think God has a material form or body? (In this case I refer to we as a unified human understanding not just a group of theists)

I do not refer to myself as a christian although I have read much of the bible. I would rather refer to my self as a theist agnostic. I believe the bible has unfortunately undergone Chinese whispers and therefore mistranslation. Whether it be accidental or manipulated to gain power is any ones guess. I think it may be a bit of both.

If you want me to find you solid proof of God's existence then I ask you to find me proof of a spaghetti monster. Pointing out this mysterious figure above the clouds is a myth. Your opponent before me told you about DNA & you replied to him with a concept about aliens. I thought that was an interesting reply. Not silly! However what alien then came and created those aliens? What was the first alien? Notice how it comes back to an original creator? I dare say the concept of God was personified so others could understand. Who said God has to have any human like qualities? Because Jesus walked the planet over 2 thousand years ago? I doubt Jesus is God (he even refered to his father according to scripture if its still true) I understand Jesus plays a big part in it all though. If I was going to pick anyone (ho ho ho) Jesus would definitely be my first guess.

It says in the bible (book of romans I think) that god is love. Where would we be with out love? Is it love that drives us to survive or fear of death? Do we eat because we love food or because we fear starvation? Is it not out of love that we avoid pain but then struggle so that our loved ones have better?

This is one of my favourite subjects to talk about (if you have not already guessed lol) I hope I have not offended you in any way (I know I'm confident about what I'm saying however I'm not comfortable with how I word it sometimes, so I may need to reword some of my phrases on occasion) I don't mind if you want to be cheeky about it, It might be a good laugh however I would like us to be polite (not a kiss arse but not a jerk either) I can be slack at replying so I hope your patient & good luck!


Since my opponent is Pro, he has the task of defending the resolution, "God does exist."

That means he needs to do two things:

1. Provide a coherent and reasonable definition of God.
2. Provide arguments and evidence in support of God's existence.

I will argue that he has not accomplished either of these tasks successfully in his Round 1 post.

The closest he has come to defining God is when he described God as "love." However, this is not a definition of God, since God as traditionally conceived is a transcendent being who is enormously powerful and knowledgeable, which love is not. So, this is not a reasonable definition of God. It is equivalent to defining God as "my pet rock" or any other random thing that any reasonable person can see exists.

He appears to admit that he cannot accomplish obligation 2, defending the resolution with arguments and evidence: "If you want me to find you solid proof of God's existence then I ask you to find me proof of a spaghetti monster. Pointing out this mysterious figure above the clouds is a myth." If my opponent admits that he cannot meet his burden of proof then I should be judged the winner of the debate.

Nevertheless, he does mention an argument I made in a previous debate about aliens. You can see the context for that remark here:

Note that my opponent does not mention that I also brought up the possibility of a human scientist with a time machine going back in time to plant DNA in the primordial soup. This does not have the problem he mentions, because it does not require an original creator. He also does not mention that I made objections to the premises that required bringing up the alternative of aliens, which renders his objection moot.

And then there is the possibility that we just don't know where the aliens came from, which is surely a better alternative than invoking God.

I conclude that my opponent has neither offered a satisfactory definition of God nor offered satisfactory arguments for God, and therefore that he has failed to meet his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jakabus 3 years ago
Can't I post a late reply after the time has elapsed? I wonder if it is going to let me reply later... il try squeeze some of it in this (its kinda connected)

The point I was trying to make in my opening argument was that God is more LIKE a conscience energy rather then a transcendent being. I think the myth of a being or body structure of some kind came from early explanations of personfy-ing it to understand it better. Plus there is also then Jesus whom walked the earth a man like the rest of us. Do you understand the confusion that I am trying to bring to light?

Love is the glue that holds humanity together. Can you imagine waking up one day to the human race losing their ability to love one another? Its what gives us our strength, motivation, boldness, passion, courage, respect, relationships ect. Love is a broad umbrella word to be fair though. With out love we would be like savage beasts...
we have a love for our self which can be seen as selfish if its over done. We have a love for family, friends and the opposite sex. We even have such a sophisticated understanding of love that we respect the strangers/ randoms we meet. By helping one another we have ascended all the other animals in interlect and technology. To think our intellect is an extension of our love.

I use to wonder why we couldn't just be intellectual creatures with out emotion so we did not feel pain. I thought it was a cruel world having to observe everybody devour life so they can survive. Then I had a dream about love & life. That we are like unborn children seeking a voice from with in the womb. God never made anything he never loved because he (above explanation) is love. Like your parents love, even if you were a mistake somebody/s loved you to survive this long. Over the past 10 years or so all this stuff has slowly been making sense to me. Its ok if you do not get it, just treat others how you would like to be treated. Does it make any sense at all?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
What is a god if you have not created one?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.